|
|
Post by Big Bri on Sept 29, 2005 10:25:55 GMT -5
pikemojo, my grandma owned a bar, my mom owned a bar, my brother managed a bar, my sister was a bartender, and I've DJ'd in bars on and off for years. Most people go to them to have some fun and to take a break from the daily grind of life. There are SOME that sit in them and waste their lives away, but only a few (you could call them bar "extremists" of you will).
Other than that, I do enjoy TNA and will be flipping back and forth to the replay on Mondays (ahh, the good ol' "last channel" button will get used again, just like it did during the Monday Night Wars!)
canadianpitbull, Guinness = the urine of an armadillo. However, I thank your country for such wonderful products such as Molson Golden and Labatt Blue.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Sept 29, 2005 10:45:37 GMT -5
And how does sitting in a bar wasting your life away make you more of a man? Does making fun of a promotion that you do not personally enjoy but obviously many others do make you feel manly? Take a look at your own poll results and realize that its time to stop attempting to make fun of TNA. WWE is bigger, and has tons more money and fans. I get it. We all do. Does that make it wrong or stupid for us to enjoy something different. No. Now go back to the WWE forum and keep on praising every move their soap opera writers make. I am not making fun of TNA. Do I enjoy TNA wrestling? Not really. Would I watch it if were on Sunday night? Or Wed. night? Probably. This poll (just like Gametime said) is about whether or not putting TNA on Saturday Nights is the right move or not... This poll is not "How much more stupid and wrong than usual is Pikemojo for watching TNA on Saturday Nights?". As for your obvious issue with alchohol, you, or someone close to you is either a) an alchoholic... b) some kind of bible beater... in either case, I wish you luck. Keep your head up chief. swarm |
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on Sept 29, 2005 13:38:27 GMT -5
canadianpitbull, Guinness = the urine of an armadillo. However, I thank your country for such wonderful products such as Molson Golden and Labatt Blue. I could see how you could come to that conclusion about Guinness especially after drinking swill like that Molson Molden and Labatt Spew. But whatever wets your whistle.  As far as this topic, If TNA realize that more people are watching the replay on Monday nights then I am sure it will change. I think they are trying something different. Saturday Nights is where they will start as part of Spike Tv's Slammin Saturday Night Block and it is smart I think since it goes with the theme. If it doesn't work out then they try something different. You have to get people to warm up to things and get into a routine. Human folk are nothing more than creatures of habit and over time folks will tune in saturday nights. But it won't happen over night. I don't know how one cannot like TNA. I think most folks have been conditioned to the WWE programming and are not use to something new or change. Those who are not interested in the TNA product should open their minds and give it an honest viewing. I think TNA is the next logical alternative and I'll be damned if they don't have my support and I am glad to see them get this far. You may not enjoy it or want to see if but if your a true wrestling fan you have to give them credit for what they are trying to accomplish. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Sept 29, 2005 16:02:23 GMT -5
Some of the responses in this thread are great examples of how folks take this stuff a little too serious and personal.
I think Pike got the wrong idea about the topic. Swarm wasn't calling anyone a clown because they are sitting home on Saturday night watching wrestling. I don't drink anymore, but I'm pretty damn sure I won't be home every Saturday night watching TNA. I used to order the weekly PPVs on a pretty regular basis, and if they are missing me as a viewer because of the time slot, then that shows SPIKE is making a mistake in that respect.
By the way, has anyone noticed that for all the complaining about Swarm's topics and posting, a lot of arguing stems from people "following" him around the board and firing on general statements he makes. Pikemojo has done this twice lately that I know of.
|
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Sept 29, 2005 17:28:07 GMT -5
You honestly think that I am following Swarm around just spouting off about him? Of course not.
This post was an obvious attempt to look down on TNA fans. The way the poll was phrased was very easily seen as if you are watching TNA on saturday nights then you must have nothing better to do. Swarm, as he said does not like TNA. He has made that very clear time and time again.
If his intentions were to simply ask what other people thought about TNA on Saturday nights instead of a possibly better time slot, then he should have stated things alot better than this. Is Saturday the best time slot for TNA? No. Is Friday night the best timeslot for Smackdown? No.
As for alcohol. I personally do drink once in a while but my point was that if all you are doing on a Saturday night is sitting in a bar drinking then what makes you better than me who is home watching TNA. I am sorry to Big Bri especially. I did not mean to make it sound like it is wrong to drink, like I said I do drink a bit, not much but a bit. Anyone else try to understand what I intended to say.
Swarm, I hope we can agree to just disagree, and not speak down on someone who has a different opinion from you.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Sept 29, 2005 18:28:05 GMT -5
Swarm, I hope we can agree to just disagree, and not speak down on someone who has a different opinion from you. _________________________________________ And are you really this immature that you need to try to imply that if you watch TNA you must not like girls. Come on Swarm. I would think you could come up with something much better than that. And if drinking is what you really consider fun on Saturday nights then it is indeed time to grow up. You first... |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Sept 30, 2005 3:20:16 GMT -5
Hey, Swarm. I am sorry. Really.
I way over reacted to your post. I should have just ignored it.
I certainly don't want a flame war on these boards. As I said before lets all just be respectful toward each other. And as you suggested I started with this appology.
Don't hold it against me everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by tafkaga on Oct 5, 2005 13:41:51 GMT -5
And it was really dumb on Spike's part not to put TNA on Monday. I don't think this is the case. WCW at the time had the resources to really give WWF some competition when they went head to head. They had Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Ric Flair, Sting, Road Warriors, Steiners, Lex Luger.... basically THE BIGGEST NAMES in wrestling over the past decade. And they had the ability to pay those huge salaries and to woo talent over from WWF. TNA has Kevin Nash (boo), Jeff Jarrett, Jeff Hardy, the Dudleys.... yeah, all recognizeable names... but no comparison to the roster that WCW had. WCW had the means to drop a major bombshell almost every week or to give the fans a "dream match" that they'd never seen before, such as Hogan vs. Luger. Even if you were the biggest WWE fan it was almost impossible not to switch channels and at least watch some of Nitro just to see what they were going to do next. TNA is still a little league company compared to WWE. Back when Nitro debuted, EVERYONE had seen WCW...it had already been on for 6 years. Everyone knew about Sting and the Horsemen and that Hulk Hogan was there. The only thing that kept it from completely obliterating the WWE was its poor production and sucky booking. TNA is a company that has not been seen by many of the mainstream fans. It doesn't have nearly the star power that WCW had. It doesn't have the "this is a big important show" feel. When your biggest star is Kevin Nash, that's evident that you're not ready to go head to head with Raw. TNA needs some time for some seasoning, and a late night time slot on Spike will give it that chance. If put head to head with Raw right now, I think that Vince could easily take his shows up another notch and crush TNA. I really think Impact should be a 2 hour show. A 1-hour show just doesn't seem as important. Also with a 2 hour show it feels more like something to set aside your time for. Like "Well Raw is coming on tonight, I'm going to stay in and check it out". Since TNA is just 1 hour, it's more of a stick a tape in the VCR and record it while you're out having fun type thing. A 2 hour format would also give them more time to introduce more wrestlers and storylines to get the audience hooked on the show. I think it's a lot harder to do that in a 1 hour format. Well, I've typed enough. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Oct 5, 2005 13:49:46 GMT -5
What is going to hurt TNA is thier lack of good story-telling. Sure some of the wrestling is good to great but after a while that alone is not enough. Some people on here will try to argue that but it's true.
The fighters need to have depth, reason, and motivation for thier feuds, wants, needs, etc...
Marching Kevin Nash and The Dudly's out and ending the show each week with a big brawl ain't gonna cut it. WCW did the same thing and look what happened to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on Oct 5, 2005 14:25:20 GMT -5
I'm a pretty big TNA fan, and I totalluy agree with you, Swarm.
TNA was actually doing pretty good when they switched to the three hour PPVs...and then two months later Big Dust had full control and things fell apart. When AJ Styles won his third World title, they built up the match as if he were a total underdog who had never had a main event in his career. That was a pretty big slap in the face to TNA fans.
Monty Brown was dead set on the World title...got screwed out of the belt (held by Jarrett)...and then joined forces with Jarrett...for some reason?
And before anyone asks "Well, if you have such a problem with them, why are you still watching?"...this was all done when Big Dust "The Savior of Smackdown, if you weeell" was put in charge. I'm holding out the hope that with him gone, things'll improve. And they gotta have more than one show to base it off of, because if I were going off one outing (which I thought was good, but not GREAT), I'd have no reason to watch Raw on USA again.
The thing about TNA is that their weekly TV is always kinda weak...but their PPVs tend to deliver in spades. It's just that the weekly TV sometimes makes you forget that until the PPV is over and you read about how good it was, and then you go "oooh, right..."
|
|
|
|
Post by tafkaga on Oct 5, 2005 14:58:58 GMT -5
I gotta agree. Good wrestling matches are not going to cut it. Sure there might be a small minority of wrestling fans who enjoy it for no other reason than the fact that there's a couple sweaty guys rolling around on top of each other in spandex. Storytelling and overall production is what put WWF ahead of everyone else in the 1980's. The wrestling business hasn't changed that much. The wrestling fans on average are not looking for a company that has 50 minutes of actual wrestling and only 10 minutes of talking/hype. What they are looking for is someone who does the talking/hype well and makes it interesting and balances it out with a good in-ring product.
Wrestling fans these days have a pretty short attention span. What TNA needs to do is get a storyline going that's going to hook people into watching their show. Not some recycled invasion angle either. Not a recycled heel commissioner angle. Something unique that will make people think "I have to tune in and see what's going to happen next week". That's what Raw did in the late 90's... that's what Nitro did in the mid 90's. I don't remember hearing too many people say "Wow, I CAN'T miss that great wrestling match next week between Rey Misterio Jr. and Juventud Guerrera". It was always about storylines first, wrestling second. If TNA doesn't do this, they'll never compete.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Oct 5, 2005 16:06:14 GMT -5
It will never happen because of politics but the best thing TNA could do right now is form an Advance Gaurd of young stars (Styles, Team Canada, Monty Brown, Somoa Joe etc...) and have a story-line where they try to take out the Nash's, JJ's, Billy Gunn's, Road Dogg's, Dudley's etc... kinda like a turf wars thing...of course to make it work, the young guys would have to win and run the old farts out of the fed, thus gaining much popularity and name recognition (or at least as much as possible). It would almost be one of those "real damn close to reality" story-lines the wrestling fans love. but for the same reasons I just gave for it to work, is the same reasons it won't happen. should I apply for a writing job for TNA?  |
|
|
|
Post by dennish on Oct 5, 2005 16:18:41 GMT -5
I agree that we need to see on TNA a mix of wrestling and storyline's, and we are seeing some shades of that. I'm giving TNA a long support, and I think we'll get a solid product in the years to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by tafkaga on Oct 5, 2005 17:12:21 GMT -5
It will never happen because of politics but the best thing TNA could do right now is form an Advance Gaurd of young stars (Styles, Team Canada, Monty Brown, Somoa Joe etc...) and have a story-line where they try to take out the Nash's, JJ's, Billy Gunn's, Road Dogg's, Dudley's etc... kinda like a turf wars thing...of course to make it work, the young guys would have to win and run the old farts out of the fed, thus gaining much popularity and name recognition (or at least as much as possible). It would almost be one of those "real damn close to reality" story-lines the wrestling fans love. but for the same reasons I just gave for it to work, is the same reasons it won't happen. should I apply for a writing job for TNA? Nothing wrong with old wrestlers at all... just old wrestlers that are boring and don't have any mainstream appeal. If they could sign a guy like Hogan and stick him in another genious angle like back in WCW, the man could still sell tickets and be entertaining at least from a storyline perspective. But Nash... who wants to see Nash? I like your storyline idea...but it's exactly the same thing that ran in WCW 2000 when Vince Russo took the helm. It was the New Blood vs. Millionaire's Club storyline. It was incredibly entertaining at first, but was quickly dilluted and for many reasons didn't work out. For one reason they pushed all the old guys as faces and the young guys were heels. It should work the other way around in my opinion. I wouldn't mind seeing TNA try this out, but like you say... I doubt it'll ever happen. |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Oct 5, 2005 17:39:36 GMT -5
I have to wonder if TNA would do better in the areas listed if they had 2 hours to do it in. Right now they are trying to make sure that Jarrett and Styles and certain other wrestlers are on every 1 hour show and then the others maybe get one or two weeks to promote their match at the ppv.
I am hoping that they learn how to properly utilize their 1 hour slot.
|
|
|
|
Post by tafkaga on Oct 5, 2005 17:46:57 GMT -5
I'm with you there. I don't see how it's possible to promote a 8 or so match PPV in a one hour time slot. With wrestling being as storyline-driven as it is these days, it just doesn't seem like enough time to do tall that without cutting it down to two matches per show or something. I could see it if we were in the 1980's and they had months to hype a feud for the next PPV... but with a monthly PPV it doesn't seem possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by gamemaster on Oct 6, 2005 7:30:07 GMT -5
I dont know if you watch TNA but the wrestling is the only thing they got going for them. The stories they do have just involve putting Jarret over. I dont mind that no ones son is at stake or there commisioner going after the world title. I say show us great matches first then when they have more time work on the younger charecters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Oct 6, 2005 14:34:22 GMT -5
I have watched TNA for the better part of its existence, and this whole "great wrestling" thing is getting a little bit exaggerated by people who want to hail it as the greatest thing since sex just because it is an alternative to WWE.
Yes, there are plenty of entertaining performers and a few excellent wrestlers that have stepped through the ring over the past three years, but it is not like there roster is just overrun with Benoits, Guerreros and HBKs. Styles in incredible, both in the air and on the mat, and Daniels can go right with him. Petey Williams is pretty good, and Raven is one of the most charismatic guys to ever lace boots. After that, you get a lot of decent (or worse) guys who are mainly spot artists. AMW and the Dudleys could produce a good feud, too.
I just wanted to point this out, as people tend to forget that the people who get the most attention in the company are a bunch of has-beens who are well past their prime. Say what you will about Shawn Michaels, but the guy is capable of throwing out the Match of the Year any time he steps in the ring with anybody he faces. That is more than can be said for any of the old guys, or most of the younger ones for that matter, in TNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on Oct 6, 2005 14:58:24 GMT -5
Well, if their roster WERE overran with Guerreros, it'd bring the show down about ten notches.
I think a lot of guys, especially X guys, don't receive enough credit for what they do...Sonjay Dutt worked a great six man match where the whole focus was him being isolated and his injured elbow being torn apart. Unlike,say, HBK who get his leg destroyed by Angle during their WM match, but still managed to bust out the Superkick (did he do it more than once? I don't recall)...
Sabin and Williams worked a great match on the same PPV centered around Sabin knowing how to counter the Canadian Destroyer, and Williams having to find a new way to beat him since his biggest weapon was neutralized.
Abyss just doesn't get enough credit period. The man can hang with Monty Brown in a power vs power contest, and hang with AJ in a balls to the wall cage match. That's range, period.
I think the main WWE gripe is that they have watered down the things most of the roster is allowed to do (like making cruisers wrestle heavyweight style, when no one wants to see 175 lb guys busting out spinebusters)...but I certainly agree that the "great wrestling" sentiment only applies to part of the TNA roster, and that certain segments like Jeff (Hardy or Jarrett, you pick...hell, take both. Please.), Nash, 3LK and Monty Brown aren't busting out the **** matches real often, though Brown and 3LK do bring an energy with them that the other guys I mentioned don't.
To me, that counts for a lot...in the dying days of WCW, it seemed like every PPV had Palumbo/O'Haire vs Nash/DDP on it...and O'Haire was the "it" guy at the time, but he while he was getting all the props, he was clearly getting blown five minutes in, while Nash and DDP were just phoning in their matches...but Palumbo was working overtime trying to make sure the other three looked good...and that made me a fan 'cause I could tell.
Tommy
Who Thought Eddie Was A Lot Better In WCW, In Every Way...And Finds That Kerwin White Actually Makes Him Long For Pepe.
|
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Oct 6, 2005 17:31:15 GMT -5
Alot of good points. Especially about 3LK and Monty Brown. They may not be the greatest in the ring but they have energy and really do get the fans pumped up. I would like to add a match to the ones that you have listed. Samoa Joe vs. Chris Sabin at No Surrender. It made Joe look really good and is part of TNA moving him up the roster plus Sabin looked really good even in defeat.
The "great wrestling" thing may only apply to part of TNAs roster but it only applies to part of WWEs roster as well. You would be hard pressed to find an entire promotion that was chock full of great wrestlers. It just doesn't happen.
|
|
